Rumsfeld And Military Discontent

Posted By Blackfive

I have received a few emails that were mostly critical that I didn't post something about Donald Rumsfeld's latest remarks to troops in Kuwait.  From the New York Times:

...One soldier, Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit, said his unit had been forced to dig through local landfills to find enough scrap metal to bolt on to their trucks for protection against roadside bombs in Iraq.

Another soldier from an Idaho National Guard unit asked what Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army were doing to addresses shortages and outdated equipment that reservists were taking into Iraq.

Mr. Rumsfeld responded that the Army was sending armored vehicles to Iraq as fast as it could, but growing frustrated with the complaints, he then retorted: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want."

Then, of course, the Democrat response:

"I was deeply disappointed to hear Secretary Rumsfeld's callous and dismissive attitude toward our troops," Representative Martin Meehan, a senior Massachusetts Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. "When confronted with multiple instances of National Guard units about their lack of preparedness and equipment, it is the responsibility of the secretary of defense to fix the problem, not disregard the concerns. Secretary Rumsfeld's dismissive attitude simply should not be tolerated."

Mr. Meehan called on President Bush to dismiss Mr. Rumsfeld, barely a week after asking the secretary to stay on the job in his second administration.

Now, a few emailers point to this confrontation as a failure of the administration to properly conduct the military in war.  And they point to it as a failure on my part to criticize the administration.  I've been critical of the administration and Republicans.

As you might recall, I had pushed for the Rapid Acquisition Authority Bill to be sent out of the Senate Armed Services Committee and into a vote.  The RAAB gave commanders the ability to make purchases that would protect their troops in a combat zone - purchases without going through the laborious and lobbyist intense acquisition process for the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats killed the bill.  Their excuse was that the 2005 Defense Budget addressed the need for Rapid Acquisition. 

They were/are incorrect.

Commanders in the field need the ability to quickly acquire materials - whether it's heavy steel plating to "armor" trucks or vehicle parts to keep equipment running - and they need it last year.

But, back on topic, did Rumsfeld do something wrong?  Did he finally slip up and show his true hand at the town hall meeting?

Why don't you read about it from the MilBlogs?

Sergeant Missick was actually at the meeting. 

2Slick has some points about the meeting, Rumsfeld, and armor in general.  He also relates it to an experience he had with the Clinton Administration.

And Froggy Ruminations has had similar experiences with the Chief of Naval Operations.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Rumsfeld And Military Discontent

I have received a few emails that were mostly critical that I didn't post something about Donald Rumsfeld's latest remarks to troops in Kuwait.  From the New York Times:

...One soldier, Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit, said his unit had been forced to dig through local landfills to find enough scrap metal to bolt on to their trucks for protection against roadside bombs in Iraq.

Another soldier from an Idaho National Guard unit asked what Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army were doing to addresses shortages and outdated equipment that reservists were taking into Iraq.

Mr. Rumsfeld responded that the Army was sending armored vehicles to Iraq as fast as it could, but growing frustrated with the complaints, he then retorted: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want."

Then, of course, the Democrat response:

"I was deeply disappointed to hear Secretary Rumsfeld's callous and dismissive attitude toward our troops," Representative Martin Meehan, a senior Massachusetts Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. "When confronted with multiple instances of National Guard units about their lack of preparedness and equipment, it is the responsibility of the secretary of defense to fix the problem, not disregard the concerns. Secretary Rumsfeld's dismissive attitude simply should not be tolerated."

Mr. Meehan called on President Bush to dismiss Mr. Rumsfeld, barely a week after asking the secretary to stay on the job in his second administration.

Now, a few emailers point to this confrontation as a failure of the administration to properly conduct the military in war.  And they point to it as a failure on my part to criticize the administration.  I've been critical of the administration and Republicans.

As you might recall, I had pushed for the Rapid Acquisition Authority Bill to be sent out of the Senate Armed Services Committee and into a vote.  The RAAB gave commanders the ability to make purchases that would protect their troops in a combat zone - purchases without going through the laborious and lobbyist intense acquisition process for the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats killed the bill.  Their excuse was that the 2005 Defense Budget addressed the need for Rapid Acquisition. 

They were/are incorrect.

Commanders in the field need the ability to quickly acquire materials - whether it's heavy steel plating to "armor" trucks or vehicle parts to keep equipment running - and they need it last year.

But, back on topic, did Rumsfeld do something wrong?  Did he finally slip up and show his true hand at the town hall meeting?

Why don't you read about it from the MilBlogs?

Sergeant Missick was actually at the meeting. 

2Slick has some points about the meeting, Rumsfeld, and armor in general.  He also relates it to an experience he had with the Clinton Administration.

And Froggy Ruminations has had similar experiences with the Chief of Naval Operations.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00d83457f2c169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rumsfeld And Military Discontent:

» Greg just can't let it go from Media Lies
Once again, Greg at Belgravia Dispatch is on Rumsfeld's case. Is he right? First he references an article in WaPo, a clear sign that he gives credibility to the Post despite their obvious bias against the President and Rumsfeld. He also fails to m... [Read More]